[r-t] RE: Method Review

Chris Poole poole at maths.ox.ac.uk
Sat Feb 19 10:13:35 UTC 2005

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Philip Earis wrote:

> All you monkeys talking about flow - blimey, plain bob is a fantastic
> method.  Ditto double bob, or double norwich. Music = runs = coursing music
> = flow. Why are there vastly more peals of Cambridge royal then plain bob
> royal?  There's an order of magnitude difference in the musical potential.
> Why hasn't there been a peal of double bob royal in decades?  People are
> inherently conservative, and happy to ring crap because they think it's the
> done thing.

Plain bob is so dull though!  Surely that's why it's not rung much on
higher numbers - methods like Cambridge are more interesting to ring.
It's all very well coming up with methods to maximise these 4 bell runs
etc., but a method also needs to hold interest for the ringer.  The trick
is to try to encompass both interest and 'music' in a method, which plain
bob does not (whereas Bristol does).  Why don't you just ring rounds for 3
hours Phil?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list